Molecular biology comprises a wide variety of techniques for the analysis of nucleic acid and protein. Many of these techniques and procedures form the basis of clinical diagnostic assays and tests. These techniques include nucleic acid hybridization analysis, restriction enzyme analysis, genetic sequence analysis, and the separation and purification of nucleic acids and proteins (See, e.g., J. Sambrook, E. F. Fritsch, and T. Maniatis, Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual, 2 Ed., Cold spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y., 1989).
Most of these techniques involve carrying out numerous operations (e.g., pipetting, centrifugations, electrophoresis) on a large number of samples. They are often complex and time consuming, and generally require a high degree of accuracy. Many a technique is limited in its application by a lack of sensitivity, specificity, or reproducibility. For example, these problems have limited many diagnostic applications of nucleic acid hybridization analysis.
The complete process for carrying out a DNA hybridization analysis for a genetic or infectious disease is very involved. Broadly speaking, the complete process may be divided into a number of steps and substeps. In the case of genetic disease diagnosis, the first step involves obtaining the sample (blood or tissue). Depending on the type of sample, various pre-treatments would be carried out. The second step involves disrupting or lysing the cells, which then release the crude DNA material along with other cellular constituents. Generally, several sub-steps are necessary to remove cell debris and to purify further the crude DNA. At this point several options exist for further processing and analysis. One option involves denaturing the purified sample DNA and carrying out a direct hybridization analysis in one of many formats (dot blot, microbead, microplate, etc.). A second option, called Southern blot hybridization, involves cleaving the DNA with restriction enzymes, separating the DNA fragments on an electrophoretic gel, blotting to a membrane filter, and then hybridizing the blot with specific DNA probe sequences. This procedure effectively reduces the complexity of the genomic DNA sample, and thereby helps to improve the hybridization specificity and sensitivity. Unfortunately, this procedure is long and arduous. A third option is to carry out the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or other amplification procedure. The PCR procedure amplifies (increases) the number of target DNA sequences relative to non-target sequences. Amplification of target DNA helps to overcome problems related to complexity and sensitivity in genomic DNA analysis. All these procedures are time consuming, relatively complicated, and add significantly to the cost of a diagnostic test. After these sample preparation and DNA processing steps, the actual hybridization reaction is performed. Finally, detection and data analysis convert the hybridization event into an analytical result.
The steps of sample preparation and processing have typically been performed separate and apart from the other main steps of hybridization and detection and analysis. Indeed, the various substeps comprising sample preparation and DNA processing have often been performed as a discrete operation separate and apart from the other substeps. Considering these substeps in more detail, samples have been obtained through any number of means, such as obtaining of full blood, tissue, or other biological fluid samples. In the case of blood, the sample is processed to remove red blood cells and retain the desired nucleated (white) cells. This process is usually carried out by density gradient centrifugation. Cell disruption or lysis is then carried out on the nucleated cells to release DNA, preferably by the technique of sonication, freeze/thawing, or by addition of lysing reagents. Crude DNA is then separated from the cellular debris by a centrifugation step. Prior to hybridization, double-stranded DNA is denatured into single-stranded form. Denaturation of the double-stranded DNA has generally been performed by the techniques involving heating (>Tm), changing salt concentration, addition of base (NaOH), or denaturing reagents (urea, formamide, etc.).
Nucleic acid hybridization analysis generally involves the detection of a very small number of specific target nucleic acids (DNA or RNA) with an excess of probe DNA, among a relatively large amount of complex non-target nucleic acids. The substeps of DNA complexity reduction in sample preparation have been utilized to help detect low copy numbers (i.e. 10,000 to 100,000) of nucleic acid targets. DNA complexity is overcome to some degree by amplification of target nucleic acid sequences using polymerase chain reaction (PCR). (See, M. A. Innis et al, PCR Protocols: A Guide to Methods and Applications, Academic Press, 1990). While amplification results in an enormous number of target nucleic acid sequences that improves the subsequent direct probe hybridization step, amplification involves lengthy and cumbersome procedures that typically must be performed on a stand alone basis relative to the other substeps. Substantially complicated and relatively large equipment is required to perform the amplification step.
The actual hybridization reaction represents one of the most important and central steps in the whole process. The hybridization step involves placing the prepared DNA sample in contact with a specific reporter probe, at a set of optimal conditions for hybridization to occur to the target DNA sequence. Hybridization may be performed in any one of a number of formats. For example, multiple sample nucleic acid hybridization analysis has been conducted on a variety of filter and solid support formats (See G. A. Beltz et al., in Methods in Enzymology, Vol. 100, Part B, R. Wu, L. Grossman, K. Moldave, Eds., Academic Press, New York, Chapter 19, pp. 266–308, 1985). One format, the so-called “dot blot” hybridization, involves the non-covalent attachment of target DNAs to filter, which are subsequently hybridized with a radioisotope labeled probe(s). “Dot blot” hybridization gained wide-spread use, and many versions were developed (see M. L. M. Anderson and B. D. Young, in Nucleic Acid Hybridization—A Practical Approach, B. D. Hames and S. J. Higgins, Eds., IRL Press, Washington, D.C. Chapter 4, pp. 73–111, 1985). It has been developed for multiple analysis of genomic mutations (D. Nanibhushan and D. Rabin, in EPA 0228075, Jul. 8, 1987) and for the detection of overlapping clones and the construction of genomic maps (G. A. Evans, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,219,726, Jun. 15, 1993).
New techniques are being developed for carrying out multiple sample nucleic acid hybridization analysis on micro-formatted multiplex or matrix devices (e.g., DNA chips) (see M. Barinaga, 253 Science, pp. 1489, 1991; W. Bains, 10 Bio/Technology, pp. 757–758, 1992). These methods usually attach specific DNA sequences to very small specific areas of a solid support, such as micro-wells of a DNA chip. These hybridization formats are micro-scale versions of the conventional “dot blot” and “sandwich” hybridization systems.
The micro-formatted hybridization can be used to carry out “sequencing by hybridization” (SBH) (see M. Barinaga, 253 Science, pp. 1489, 1991; W. Bains, 10 Bio/Technology, pp. 757–758, 1992). SBH makes use of all possible n-nucleotide oligomers (n-mers) to identify n-mers in an unknown DNA sample, which are subsequently aligned by algorithm analysis to produce the DNA sequence (R. Drmanac and R. Crkvenjakov, Yugoslav Patent Application #570/87, 1987; R. Drmanac et al., 4 Genomics, 114, 1989; Strezoska et al., 88 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 10089, 1992; and R. Drmanac and R. B. Crkvenjakov, U.S. Pat. No. 5,202,231, Apr. 13, 1993).
There are two formats for carrying out SBH. The first format involves creating an array of all possible n-mers on a support, which is then hybridized with the target sequence. The second format involves attaching the target sequence to a support, which is sequentially probed with all possible n-mers. Both formats have the fundamental problems of direct probe hybridizations and additional difficulties related to multiplex hybridizations.
Southern, United Kingdom Patent Application GB 8810400, 1988; E. M. Southern et al., 13 Genomics 1008, 1992, proposed using the first format to analyze or sequence DNA. Southern identified a known single point mutation using PCR amplified genomic DNA. Southern also described a method for synthesizing an array of oligonucleotides on a solid support for SBH. However, Southern did not address how to achieve optimal stringency condition for each oligonucleotide on an array.
Concurrently, Drmanac et al., 260 Science 1649–1652, 1993, used the second format to sequence several short (116 bp) DNA sequences. Target DNAs were attached to membrane supports (“dot blot” format). Each filter was sequentially hybridized with 272 labeled 10-mer and 11-mer oligonucleotides. A wide range of stringency condition was used to achieve specific hybridization for each n-mer probe; washing times varied from 5 minutes to overnight, and temperatures from 0° C. to 16° C. Most probes required 3 hours of washing at 16° C. The filters had to be exposed for 2 to 18 hours in order to detect hybridization signals. The overall false positive hybridization rate was 5% in spite of the simple target sequences, the reduced set of oligomer probes, and the use of the most stringent conditions available.
A variety of methods exist for detection and analysis of the hybridization events. Depending on the reporter group (fluorophore, enzyme, radioisotope, etc.) used to label the DNA probe, detection and analysis are carried out fluorimetrically, calorimetrically, or by autoradiography. By observing and measuring emitted radiation, such as fluorescent radiation or particle emission, information may be obtained about the hybridization events. Even when detection methods have very high intrinsic sensitivity, detection of hybridization events is difficult because of the background presence of non-specifically bound materials. A number of other factors also reduce the sensitivity and selectivity of DNA hybridization assays.
Attempts have been made to combine certain processing steps or substeps together. For example, various microrobotic systems have been proposed for preparing arrays of DNA probe on a support material. For example, Beattie et al., in The 1992 San Diego Conference: Genetic Recognition, November, 1992, used a microrobotic system to deposit micro-droplets containing specific DNA sequences into individual microfabricated sample wells on a glass substrate.
Generally, the prior art processes have been extremely labor and time intensive. For example, the PCR amplification process is time consuming and adds cost to the diagnostic assay. Multiple steps requiring human intervention either during the process or between processes is suboptimal in that there is a possibility of contamination and operator error. Further, the use of multiple machines or complicated robotic systems for performing the individual processes is often prohibitive except for the largest laboratories, both in terms of the expense and physical space requirements.
Attempts have been made to enhance the overall sample introduction, to sample preparation analysis process. Given the relatively small volume of sample material which is often times available, improved processes are desired for the efficient provisions of sample, transport of sample and effective analysis of sample. While various proposals have been advanced, certain systems enjoy relative advantages in certain circumstances.
Yet another area of interest is in the electrical addressing of relatively large arrays. As array grow relatively large, the efficient operation of the system becomes more of a consideration. Efficient interfacing of an array based system with electrical connections off-chip raise pin or contact limitation issues. Further, constraints regarding effective chip or array size present issues regarding the selection of components, and the size of them, for inclusion on the chip or substrate. Often times, various selections must be made to provide an effective optimization of advantages in the overall design.
One proposed solution for the control of an array of electrodes utilizing less than one individual dedicated connection per electrode or test site is provided in Kovacs U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/677,305, entitled “Multiplexed Active Biological Array”, filed Jul. 9, 1996, incorporated herein as if fully set forth herein. The array is formed of a plurality of electrode sites, a typical electrode site including an electrode, a driving element coupled to the electrode for applying an electrical stimulus to the electrode and a local memory coupled to the driving element for receiving and storing a signal indicative of a magnitude of the electrical stimulus to be applied to the electrode. Multiple embodiments are disclosed for selectively coupling a value signal through coaction of a row line and a column line for storage in the local memory. In this way, the values at the various electrodes in the array may differ from one another.
In Fiaccabrino, G. C., et al., “Array of Individual Addressable Microelectrodes”, Sensors and Actuators B, 18–19, (1994) 675–677, an array of n2 electrodes are connected to two n pins, plus 2 additional pins for signal output and bulk bias. The row and column signals drive series connected transistors to provide a single value to a working electrode. This system does not enable the switching of two or more electrodes simultaneously at different potentials.
In Kakerow, R. et al., “A Monolithic Sensor Array of Individually Addressable Microelectrodes”, Sensors and Actuators A, 43 (1994) 296–301, a monolithic single chip sensor array for measuring chemical and biochemical parameters is described. A 20×20 array of individually addessable sensor cells is provided. The sensor cells are serially addressed by the sensor control unit. One horizontal and one vertical shift register control selection of the sensor cells. Only one sensor cell is selected at a time. As a result, multiple sites may not be activated simultaneously.
Yet another concern is the ability to test an electronic device prior to application of a conductive solution on the device. As devices or chips become more complicated, the possibility of a manufacturing or process error generally increases. While visual inspection of circuitry may be performed, further testing may ensure an operational device is provided to the end user.
As is apparent from the preceding discussion, numerous attempts have been made to provide effective techniques to conduct multi-step, multiplex molecular biological reactions. However, for the reasons stated above, these techniques are “piece-meal”, limited and have not effectively optimized solutions. These various approaches are not easily combined to form a system which can carry out a complete DNA diagnostic assay. Despite the long-recognized need for such a system, no satisfactory solution has been proposed previously.